The Soulfource Equality Ride (a group of young adults calling for an end to discrimination against people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) recently visited the campus of Abilene Christian University. See some reflections on travistanley.net and kendallball.net. Also, Mike Cope recently published a blog post giving some of his thoughts on homosexuality. I think he did a pretty good job of representing the best approach: loving the sinner without condoning the sin. Read it here.
From an op-ed piece in the NY Times by Garry Wills, professor emeritus of history at Northwestern University and the author, most recently, of "What Jesus Meant.". Some of his assertions are unconventional, but I suspect that some of them are closer to the truth than not:
THERE is no such thing as a "Christian politics." If it is a politics, it cannot be Christian. Jesus told Pilate: "My reign is not of this present order. If my reign were of this present order, my supporters would have fought against my being turned over to the Jews. But my reign is not here" (John 18:36). Jesus brought no political message or program. This is a truth that needs emphasis at a time when some Democrats, fearing that the Republicans have advanced over them by the use of religion, want to respond with a claim that Jesus is really on their side. He is not. He avoided those who would trap him into taking sides for or against the Roman occupation of Judea. He paid his taxes to the occupying power but said only, "Let Caesar have what belongs to him, and God have what belongs to him" (Matthew 22:21). He was the original proponent of a separation of church and state. Those who want the state to engage in public worship, or even to have prayer in schools, are defying his injunction: "When you pray, be not like the pretenders, who prefer to pray in the synagogues and in the public square, in the sight of others. In truth I tell you, that is all the profit they will have. But you, when you pray, go into your inner chamber and, locking the door, pray there in hiding to your Father, and your Father who sees you in hiding will reward you" (Matthew 6:5-6). He shocked people by his repeated violation of the external holiness code of his time, emphasizing that his religion was an internal matter of the heart. But doesn't Jesus say to care for the poor? Repeatedly and insistently, but what he says goes far beyond politics and is of a different order. He declares that only one test will determine who will come into his reign: whether one has treated the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the imprisoned as one would Jesus himself. "Whenever you did these things to the lowliest of my brothers, you were doing it to me" (Matthew 25:40). No government can propose that as its program. Theocracy itself never went so far, nor could it. The state cannot indulge in self-sacrifice. If it is to treat the poor well, it must do so on grounds of justice, appealing to arguments that will convince people who are not followers of Jesus or of any other religion. The norms of justice will fall short of the demands of love that Jesus imposes. A Christian may adopt just political measures from his or her own motive of love, but that is not the argument that will define justice for state purposes. To claim that the state's burden of justice, which falls short of the supreme test Jesus imposes, is actually what he wills - that would be to substitute some lesser and false religion for what Jesus brought from the Father. Of course, Christians who do not meet the lower standard of state justice to the poor will, a fortiori, fail to pass the higher test. Some may think that removing Jesus from politics would mean removing morality from politics. They think we would all be better off if we took up the slogan "What would Jesus do?" That is not a question his disciples ask in the Gospels. They never knew what Jesus was going to do next. He could round on Peter and call him "Satan." He could refuse to receive his mother when she asked to see him. He might tell his followers that they are unworthy of him if they do not hate their mother and their father. He might kill pigs by the hundreds. He might whip people out of church precincts. The Gospels are scary, dark and demanding. It is not surprising that people want to tame them, dilute them, make them into generic encouragements to be loving and peaceful and fair. If that is all they are, then we may as well make Socrates our redeemer. It is true that the tamed Gospels can be put to humanitarian purposes, and religious institutions have long done this, in defiance of what Jesus said in the Gospels.
Today I finished watching Oscar and Lucinda (1997,R) (Screen It! Review). From Wikipedia:
It tells the story of Oscar Hopkins, an English Anglican priest, and Lucinda Leplastrier, a young Australian heiress who buys a glass factory. They meet on the boat over to Australia, and discover that they both like to gamble. Lucinda bets Oscar that he cannot transport a glass church into the outback in one piece. This bet changes both their lives forever.
I really enjoyed this one. I give it 4 out of 5.
From an article by M.P. Dunleavey in The New York Times and reprinted in the International Herald Tribune:
One of the great puzzles of human nature is why we keep striving for more material things - money, jobs, homes, cars, flat-screen televisions - when they do not seem to make us any happier in the long run. Philosophers have pondered this conundrum for centuries, and modern economists have been examining it from a number of angles, over several decades, in a multitude of cultures. Not only does greater wealth not guarantee happiness - even when you get what you want - research indicates that you will not find it as satisfying as you had hoped, and you will want something else. Richard Easterlin, professor of economics at the University of Southern California, is one of the seminal researchers in this area. In effect, his work shows that if you think that buying a three-bedroom condominium and a certain kind of car will make you happy, you had better think twice. In a few years, a) you're not likely to report being any happier, and b) you're likely to say that, now, finding a good private school for your children and buying a vacation home will really make you happy. In Easterlin's view, this cycle of desire and dissatisfaction tends to keep people on an endless treadmill. This may sound self-defeating, but that is Easterlin's point. Why not get off the treadmill and pursue a life with fewer material ambitions? You would probably be happier. Or would you? If our material achievements tend to leave us only momentarily fulfilled, why then do so many people keep reaching for that next goal? Claudia Senik, professor of economics at the Sorbonne, believes that the struggle for a certain achievement may offer a peculiar reward all its own. "For the basic person there is pleasure in progress," Senik said. "We are proud to aim at something - to earn a degree, buy a house. So when I work to reach a higher position or earn a higher income, I'm already happy today." It may seem that we are all hapless consumers, at the mercy of our own greed and needs - or cursed by the gods. But Senik offers a more positive interpretation. You can let go of the rather iffy rewards of getting and spending, and look for everyday pleasure while you are struggling to advance, improve, progress, achieve and attain. As Easterlin pointed out, "If you recognize that the striving can be of value in itself, then instead of taking a job that pays you the most, you may be better off taking work you'll enjoy."
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer